Experiences with Nikon D4 vs Canon 1Dx

[atlnq9]

Currently I am using a Pentax 645D with a selection of lenses from 35mm to 600mm.  I have primarily been working on landscapes and environmental wildlife images (wildlife in spectacular landscapes where the animals take up anywhere from 5% to 25% of the frame).  I use this for slow moving subjects in decent light.  I always prefer f6.7-f11 and less then ISO 800 complimented with a suitable shutter speed for the chosen focal length.  The issue though comes when the light is low or the subject is moving then the Pentax 645D becomes unsuitable for various reasons from AF, to noise, to DOF, to manual focus lenses, to camera shake...  I have been compliment this with a Pentax K5 and a couple compact primes for lightweight travel and mountaineering.  I have a Pentax 300mm 2.8 for the K5 from my film days but I find that this is often a bit long on the crop sensor and the AF is to sporadic.

I have been out of the loop for some time now on Canon and Nikon 35mm bodies for sometime now.  Previous to this I used a Pentax 645NII and Mamiya 7.  I had many years ago rented a Canon 1v and several lenses; but, as I said that was roughly 10 years ago so no real experience with Canon or Nikon.

What I am looking for is a 35mm body and lens set to compliment the 645D for when the 645D just can't perform in the conditions.  The two options I see that are currently on the market are the Nikon D4 and the Canon 1Dx.  Now these cameras are overkill for me in some areas.  There is no way I need the burst rates that they offer or the video controls.  What I see in them are moderate resolution sensors that perform superb in low light and fast/accurate/tracking AF. 

I have the advantage of choosing into Nikon or Canon and can't for the life of me make up my mind as to which would best suit me.  And I am by no means opposed to used previous models either.

Please whatever you do, do not tell me to drop the Pentax 645D for a Nikon D800 to cover the entire gamut.  The 645D stays with me.  I would be incredibly surprised if a Nikon D800 could match my Pentax 645D cropped to a 4:3 or 6:7 format with my top end glass (645FA* 120mm 4.0, 645FA* 300mm  4.0, 67M* 400mm 4.0, 645A* 600mm 5.6).  I want something that isn't so demanding of lenses that can be used for a quick shot before the lion ducks his head under the bush; not something I have to carefully select the lens and aperture, set up, check focus in live view, MLU, etc.  Also the Pentax K5 is not going anywhere but the 300mm 2.8 and a few other lenses will be sold.  I have to retain a quality, rugged, weatherproof, light weight system.

Any thoughts or are these two cameras pretty much dead even for me as far as body, IS/VR, and glass is concerned?  BTW I should mention that I am currently living in Namibia, Africa...

[KevinA]

Hi,
I can only speak from a couple of weeks using the 1D X. I suspect the D4 and 1D x are the best for your task as described.
I think the AA filter on the X is very weak, the ability to dig into shadows is the best I've had on a Canon. I also think the files up-scale very well.
I did a few 12800 iso shots just to have a look and it's a revelation for me, not that I would choose 12800 unless my arm was twisted. Nikon have had that kind of performance for a year or two.
As for high fps, I can see a use for it, HDR, 3 frames at 12 fps might be enough in some circumstances for a live animal.
Video, why not shoot some video, it could be a new market for you.
I doubt there is a gnats whisker difference between the two, I think I would look at lenses you would like and make the decision based on the best lenses in the range that suits you.
So far I can't fault the X, I'm not missing a truck load of pixels, then again if the rumoured 46mp appeared I would feel compelled to take a look:-)
One drawback with both for you is the weight of a 35mm kit and a 645. Your idea about not wanting the D800...I think I would at least take a look, it might answer more question than you thought you needed to ask. Also a little wait to see if the 46mp Canon exists and is any good (something is being tested out there) could also be an answer. I think the 6D might give a clue to it's performance, that has a new sensor, Canon are not going to let Sony steal all of the show.
Another alternative might be the Leica S, handles like a 35mm.

Kevin.

[Sheldon N]

I've got the 1D X and have shot it alongside friend's D800 and D3S cameras. For image quality and file quality between the 1D X and D4, they are going to be very close to each other. Maybe a touch more shadow detail for the D4 if you're really trying to push the file to maximize dynamic range, but I prefer the look of the 1D X files when pushed.

High ISO noise performance of the Canon is extremely impressive, and will definitely meet your needs. The Canon probably has the edge in autofocus speed/acquisition, the new AF system is very good indeed.

I'd personally give the edge to Canon for the longer lenses. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is very, very good, as is all of the longer glass (200 f/2, 300 f/2.8 II, 400 f/2.8 II, 500 f/4 II, 600 f/4 II).

You won't go wrong with either system, though.

[LKaven]

I'm not sure why you would want a D4 instead of a D800/800E.  Is it the frame rate?  The D800 has the same AF which tracks nicely at -1EV, and is equivalent in AF speed.  The D800 is great at high ISOs with fast shutter speeds.  [The only weakness of the Exmor is thermal noise, and that is only a factor at low shutter speeds and ISO6400+.]  It has much more DR. 

[Ellis Vener]

I've shot extensively with both the D4 and 1D X and both are really terrific cameras. I think the 1DX camera is the best camera Canon has produced yet. From the vastly improved AF and metering to the user interface and ergonomics it is just superb. If you have an extensive selection of CF cards you'll like the dual CF slots. The Canon EOS 1Dx is my favorite "pick up and walk out the door and start making photographs camera" right now.

The D4 is likewise terrific. I give it the edge over the 1D X for shooting at  ISO's over 12,800 and the new XQD format media (one slot is XQD the other is CF) is definitely faster than the fastest CF cards currently available but it means you'll need both XQD and CF media.

battery life on the D4 seems better than with the 1DX and it's new battery (which is also backward compatible with the 1D IV, 1D III and 1Ds Mark III.

Both brands offer a few superb lenses that the other doesn't.

If you use either Nikon's iTTL or Canon's E-TTL  "smart flash" lights, with the 1D X Canon has definitely caught up with Nikon in reliability, repeatability and accuracy.

If you wear glasses the view through the viewfinder in the D4 is better.

I also like the color coming out of the 1D X more than my other Canon's - it seems less digital- and that is before using  the DataColor SpyderColorCheckr or Xrite ColorChecker Passsport or Adobe DNG profile editor to create custom profiles for specific camera bodies.

I suggest you rent both with a current model 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom or 85mm f/1.8 (make sure the AF micro-adjustment is tuned for that specific individual camera and lens combination) for week and see which you like more.

[allegretto]

  It has much more DR. 

well... http://sensorgen.info/

[atlnq9]

Carrying two systems is not an issue for me as a usually hire a private guide or self drive.  Which translates to lots of space for gear and never a weight limit... 

I know all the rave right now is the D800, and it would probably be a suitable substitute for the Pentax 645D at this moment, but what happens in a year when Pentax brings forward a 60MP close to full frame?  I imagine with careful lens selection just like I have done for the 645D the image quality would be equivalent.  But often prefer the 6x7 or square format which crop out of the 4:3 aspect very nicely. 

The D800 is very attractive to me if I buy into a Nikon system; but, I am very unwilling to treat it as a substitute to my current Pentax system.  The Pentax 645D is a fantastic camera where image and ergonomics is concerned, it is a work of art, almost as if it was actually designed by photographers as opposed to scientists and engineers.  The camera is certainly less demanding on lenses as it is using the center region from my 645 and 67 lenses.  The other difficulty is I know I couldn't use the D800 as my one camera.  The burst is too slow (not that I need 12fps but 6-8 is a great advantage), and it would be very demanding on technique and glass selection (not unlike the 645D though, but that is the thing I need an option for when it just isn't possible).  And what was all this talk a year ago about why do we need medium format when we can up res from a 20mp sensor and get decent quality; now all of a sudden you have to have 36mp and 18mp just won't cut it anymore.  Confusing logic.

The other issue is I am in Africa for another 9 months.  This means there is no way for me to sell the Pentax system.  Well I can but it cost 3k USD to get it to North America, Europe, or Aisa...  It is hard for me to justify a D800, D4 and wide angle to teleophoto for it just to replace a Pentax system that gathers dust.  As it stands now the lenses on my buy list for Nikon/Canon don't cover the wide end as I have the Pentax system.  Sure if I was in the US still I would be considering this option more heavily where I could test if a D800 could be suitable in combination with a D4 and reduce/eliminate the need for the 645D.

So the bottom line I see is Nikon is very interesting to me as far as camera bodies are concerned since it could give me a high resolution spare body to compliment a D4.  It sounds as though the D4 and 1Dx are very very comparable with a slight AF edge to Canon.  I like the dual CF cards on Canon.  This makes things difficult.

As far as lenses are concerned I think Canon is where I would like to be.  I am very intrigued by the 200-400 with the built in 1.4x converter.  That seems to be a lens built for getting perfect framing in the heat of fast action.  I am thinking that I should wait until a few of these get into the hands of photographers and see if they can pull prime quality sharpness from a fast super tele zoom.  And if the low light performance really is superb the draw back from not having a 300mm 2.8 or 500mm 4.0 is pretty minimal especially considering how narrow the DOF is at those apertures.  That is 90% of the reason I don't like shooting medium format with long glass wide open.  If the 200-400 isn't what I hope that leaves the 300 2.8 and 500 4.0.  The other key lens would be a fast 100-200 prime which I am sure they both have a good option in there.  And if/when the 645D becomes redundant then I will look for some wide primes; probably a mix of zeiss and TS.

So basically I am being told to wait on Canon from two fronts.  The 200-400mm and the potential for a high resolution body.  Waiting is both good and bad.  Good if they bring something to the table similar to a D800 in that I may be back in the US right when it hits the shelves.  Nine months is a long time to go without this configuration in Africa.  I think I had too high hopes for what I could do with the 645D a year and a half ago when I arrived.  Granted I have some fabulous images on medium format resolution; but every trip I am always missing a couple. 

I hate this waiting and I wish I was in a country that I could actually try things out.  Renting is out of the question which is causing some stress.  Before I chose the Pentax 645D I compared it with Phase One, Leica S2, and the 645D.  This made the choice easy. Does Lens Rentals ship to Namibia?  LOL, Amazon doesn't even ship here.  And there isn't a dealer here who has ever even held a pro Nikon or Canon DSLR let alone would be able get one for a test.

[LKaven]

well... http://sensorgen.info/

Well, yes: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm

[allegretto]

Well, yes: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm

Although the two charts are a little different in absolute value, both sources indicate that the D800 has a stop or so more at very low ISO (like 100) Would not call it "much" as you did, but at least on paper it seems to be more. The sensorgen data (a bit more revealing since it includes other highly relevant data) would appear to favor the D4 at common ISO's (at least the ones I shoot at frequently). Just looking at DR in a vacuum may not be as revealing.

This is but one parameter and doesn't tell the whole story. Note the saturation capacity and read noise numbers on D4 as well. Around double and lower noise for most of the range. Was thinking of renting a D800 to see how much "better" it was visually. No doubt at very low ISO and especially under focal length limited situations the D800 would do better, especially if print size were constant. But if we look at full sensor (not focal length limited) I'm not sure how superior it would be due to the lower noise.

Further, unless I misunderstand, the very high saturation capacity is s distinct advantage at higher ISO's. As Michael's review of the D800 points out, a lot of things have to be just right to actually experience that superior behavior. But getting back to available light (where much of my work is) I guess you'd just have to see the pictures. Great color and detail at ISO's that leave other cameras I have used in the dust.. Perhaps the D800 can match it, but I'd have to see that since the parameters favor the D4.

It seems that many here feel that the D800 is just a "superior" camera and the D4's only advantage is a high frame rate and bigger battery. But I think that analysis is a bit shallow and based upon the things that seem like "headline spcs'. I learned with many devices things do not always match the assumed benefits of those specs and one must test in the real world. Again, I can't say for sure but at the left edge, the 800 may have an advantage, but not in the center or right of the range. do you actually think that Nikon just made an inferior device for $2K + more? Think I'll have to check in the real world with a rented D800.

The Canon data is puzzling, would you not agree? I wonder how much visual difference there is between 12 and 13 stops. Maybe someone here can tell me?

[BernardLanguillier]

Further, unless I misunderstand, the very high saturation capacity is s distinct advantage at higher ISO's. As Michael's review of the D800 points out, a lot of things have to be just right to actually experience that superior behavior. But getting back to available light (where much of my work is) I guess you'd just have to see the pictures. Great color and detail at ISO's that leave other cameras I have used in the dust.. Perhaps the D800 can match it, but I'd have to see that since the parameters favor the D4.

It seems that many here feel that the D800 is just a "superior" camera and the D4's only advantage is a high frame rate and bigger battery. But I think that analysis is a bit shallow and based upon the things that seem like "headline spcs'. I learned with many devices things do not always match the assumed benefits of those specs and one must test in the real world. Again, I can't say for sure but at the left edge, the 800 may have an advantage, but not in the center or right of the range. do you actually think that Nikon just made an inferior device for $2K + more? Think I'll have to check in the real world with a rented D800.

It seems clear that the D4 pulls ahead in absolute image quality beyond a certain ISO. From what I recall, Thom Hogan sees this transition happen around ISO 3200-6400 when comparing the D800 and D4. The same can probably be said of the 1Dx.

There are many reason why the D4/1Dx are more expensive:
- Speed is one,
- The bodies are speced even higher in terms of physical resistance and durability (falls,...),
- The bodies are targeting s very specific user population and their specs (ethernet,...) will therefore be a perfect match for much fewer photographers -> they will sell in small volumes,
- The target buyers are willing to pay more,
- ...

Cheers,
Bernard

[allegretto]

Bernard to the rescue! Thanks.

Can say that when I let auto ISO determine things and concentrate on image and aperture, it often goes to the 3-6000 ISO range, sometimes even 12500 but the pictures are great with excellent color and detail. So maybe I'm one of those "limited niche" users. It lead to some consternation early on since having never worked that high there was concern about quality and noise. To my delight, colors and detail were shockingly good and now I have the confidence to let it do its thing and I do mine...

[FredBGG]

I have primarily been working on landscapes and environmental wildlife images (wildlife in spectacular landscapes where the animals take up anywhere from 5% to 25% of the frame).

For the type of images you are shooting and the locations I think you would be better off with a D800E (or two of them).
The extra resolution, no anti alisa filter, the lighter weight and the redundency of two bodies compared to the price of the D4 or 1DX.
For better "ruggedness" you could add body armor or delkin sng it pro

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/866721-REG/Delkin_Devices_DDSPROND800_B_Snug_It_Pro_Skin_for.html

[LKaven]

It seems that many here feel that the D800 is just a "superior" camera and the D4's only advantage is a high frame rate and bigger battery. But I think that analysis is a bit shallow and based upon the things that seem like "headline spcs'. I learned with many devices things do not always match the assumed benefits of those specs and one must test in the real world. Again, I can't say for sure but at the left edge, the 800 may have an advantage, but not in the center or right of the range. do you actually think that Nikon just made an inferior device for $2K + more? Think I'll have to check in the real world with a rented D800.

I have both the D4 and D800, and use both in very low light (12k8) more than most (night taxi, basement club, night street, etc).  You are right that one has to look beyond the numbers.  Both have exceptionally low pattern noise, with a slight edge going at times to the D800.  But as you suggest, there are some subtle qualitative differences.

The D800 is subject to high thermal noise at high gain settings, even at handheld speeds like 1/80th at ISO6400, and more so with live view.  This can be addressed with a manual black frame subtraction.  This is a bit too slow for a production routine.  LENR should be a full-time option at ISO6400 and up on these cameras.  

But!  There are some additional considerations.  A low light shot with the D800 after black frame subtraction can be something really amazing.  A surprising amount of usable detail holds up.  For one thing, even low light scenes have areas of better lighting.  Just a dark scene with a catchlight on a subject's eye is enough to make the detail from the eye jump right out at you.  You can still get amazing face detail even with subjects who are small in the frame.  You get /coherence/ from all those pixels, even in the shadows.  If this camera had LENR as a full-time option at high ISO settings, I'd use it most of the time for low light work.

Encore un but.  The D4 is really set up for handling and rapid use.  It feels great, it has a great viewfinder, and everything works without cramps.  The 16MP files are very usable, and fast the process.  You can shoot all day as long as you don't mind the weight.

As for the extra dynamic range, I think the newer D4 and 1Dx have improved on pattern noise, so that the shadow response at ISO100 is acceptable.  But I also think the extra 1.5 stops of DR on the D800 makes a difference in shadow-to-sky transitions where you (i) don't want to blow out the sky, and (ii) want to be able to lift the shadows a stop or two in post and have them look solid.

[allegretto]

I have both the D4 and D800, and use both in very low light (12k8) more than most (night taxi, basement club, night street, etc).  You are right that one has to look beyond the numbers.  Both have exceptionally low pattern noise, with a slight edge going at times to the D800.  But as you suggest, there are some subtle qualitative differences.

The D800 is subject to high thermal noise at high gain settings, even at handheld speeds like 1/80th at ISO6400, and more so with live view.  This can be addressed with a manual black frame subtraction.  This is a bit too slow for a production routine.  LENR should be a full-time option at ISO6400 and up on these cameras.  

But!  There are some additional considerations.  A low light shot with the D800 after black frame subtraction can be something really amazing.  A surprising amount of usable detail holds up.  For one thing, even low light scenes have areas of better lighting.  Just a dark scene with a catchlight on a subject's eye is enough to make the detail from the eye jump right out at you.  You can still get amazing face detail even with subjects who are small in the frame.  You get /coherence/ from all those pixels, even in the shadows.  If this camera had LENR as a full-time option at high ISO settings, I'd use it most of the time for low light work.

Encore un but.  The D4 is really set up for handling and rapid use.  It feels great, it has a great viewfinder, and everything works without cramps.  The 16MP files are very usable, and fast the process.  You can shoot all day as long as you don't mind the weight.

As for the extra dynamic range, I think the newer D4 and 1Dx have improved on pattern noise, so that the shadow response at ISO100 is acceptable.  But I also think the extra 1.5 stops of DR on the D800 makes a difference in shadow-to-sky transitions where you (i) don't want to blow out the sky, and (ii) want to be able to lift the shadows a stop or two in post and have them look solid.

Thanks for that info!

I am considering an 800, but only after I master the myriad controls/options of the D4. Otherwise I fear it's just a lot to learn at once. But I'm curious as to why, if you have a D4 you didn't go to an 800e. Those shots with wide open lenses and low ISO would seem to be where the "e" would show its stuff... no?

[fotojev]

I have a D4 since about a week. It is outstanding in speed and low-light responsiveness. I went for the D4 instead of the 1Dx because of the extra weight of the 1Dx. I use this body for mountaineering. The 1Dx is 200grams heavier than the D4 and also the weather-sealed Canon lenses are about 300 grams heavier than the 50mm 1.4g I use from Nikon.

I also have a 5D mk3 since yesterday. Mainly to see if I will keep it as a general usage body since it is smaller than a d4. The AF is not as fast a the D4 (with 50mm 1.2 L lens vs 50mm 1.4g) and also not as snappy in low light. But a 5D is not a 1Dx that is supposed to be similar in speed and iso to a D4. The IQ is very good and comparable to the best of Nikon (also do not have D800).

The main reason for me to stick to the Canon brand is the Canon 800mm! Wonderful lens. The second reason is that Nikon does not have a recent crop body. The D300s is too old for my liking and does not have enough pixels.

Hopefully this adds some useful information to your question since I do not have a 1Dx.

[KevinA]

I've shot extensively with both the D4 and 1D X and both are really terrific cameras. I think the 1DX camera is the best camera Canon has produced yet. From the vastly improved AF and metering to the user interface and ergonomics it is just superb. If you have an extensive selection of CF cards you'll like the dual CF slots. The Canon EOS 1Dx is my favorite "pick up and walk out the door and start making photographs camera" right now.

The D4 is likewise terrific. I give it the edge over the 1D X for shooting at  ISO's over 12,800 and the new XQD format media (one slot is XQD the other is CF) is definitely faster than the fastest CF cards currently available but it means you'll need both XQD and CF media.

battery life on the D4 seems better than with the 1DX and it's new battery (which is also backward compatible with the 1D IV, 1D III and 1Ds Mark III.

Both brands offer a few superb lenses that the other doesn't.

If you use either Nikon's iTTL or Canon's E-TTL  "smart flash" lights, with the 1D X Canon has definitely caught up with Nikon in reliability, repeatability and accuracy.

If you wear glasses the view through the viewfinder in the D4 is better.

I also like the color coming out of the 1D X more than my other Canon's - it seems less digital- and that is before using  the DataColor SpyderColorCheckr or Xrite ColorChecker Passsport or Adobe DNG profile editor to create custom profiles for specific camera bodies.

I suggest you rent both with a current model 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom or 85mm f/1.8 (make sure the AF micro-adjustment is tuned for that specific individual camera and lens combination) for week and see which you like more.

Did you process the X files in an Adobe product? I see less noise when dev'ed in DPP.

Kevin.

[atlnq9]

For the type of images you are shooting and the locations I think you would be better off with a D800E (or two of them).
The extra resolution, no anti alisa filter, the lighter weight and the redundency of two bodies compared to the price of the D4 or 1DX.
For better "ruggedness" you could add body armor or delkin sng it pro

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/866721-REG/Delkin_Devices_DDSPROND800_B_Snug_It_Pro_Skin_for.html

I am very convinced the D800 isn't the solution to the issues I am having with the Pentax 645D for my use.  And I can't fully explain what I am looking to fix because I don't have other options to test.  The fact is that that is what I shoot now because you can't photograph what is missing for me because the 645D isn't designed for it.  If the issue was just a spare body I would take the 6K from purchasing two D800 and buy a used 645D and be done.  The thing is I am missing part of what I am wanting because I am not geared for it.  I don't envision the D800 filling what I am missing but just being a cheap replacement for the Pentax 645D.  I think part of it is the AF, part of it the noise, part of it the difficulty in keeping everything in touch; managing frame rate, depth of field (aperture), noise, shutter speed, AF/MF, etc.

Is the D800 lighter by the time I carry enough spare batteries to match the batter life from the D4?  Is the weight difference measurable when a 300mm 2.8 is mounted on it?  The weight isn't a big concern for me; I am managing a medium format camera with a 600mm 5.6 lens and a Gitzo series 4 aluminum tripod with RRS BH55 head in very remote areas now.  And I have tried one of those body armor things in a shop and from the brief experience it was more of a pain than protection.  Putting an L bracket on a camera offers more protection because then you hand protects one side and the L bracket offers very solid protection from the bottom and other side.

Encore un but.  The D4 is really set up for handling and rapid use.  It feels great, it has a great viewfinder, and everything works without cramps.  The 16MP files are very usable, and fast the process.  You can shoot all day as long as you don't mind the weight.

I have a D4 since about a week. It is outstanding in speed and low-light responsiveness. I went for the D4 instead of the 1Dx because of the extra weight of the 1Dx. I use this body for mountaineering. The 1Dx is 200grams heavier than the D4 and also the weather-sealed Canon lenses are about 300 grams heavier than the 50mm 1.4g I use from Nikon.

Very useful information.  Keeps reminding me that these D800 and 5D's are still designed as landscape cameras not low light action machines.  Sure they can be used when the conditions are right and produce higher resolution but I have a fantastic solution for those conditions now.  I will be keeping my Pentax k5 and lightweight pancake primes for my remote off the path photography as it is just so light weight and has quite incredible performance and ergonomics for an APS-c body.  However on the wieght of canon lenses, the telephoto primes from canon always seem to win the lighter weight sticker over the comparable nikon version.  So I guess it comes down to where you want the weight savings in the portable lenses or in the monsters where the maximum weight savings is but they aren't designed to be portable...

I think I will wait it out for a bit and see what anouncments Canon comes out with and what price the 200-400 comes in with and how it performs.  As I look into it more I would like to be with Canon for the telephoto lenses so 1Dx sounds like the body to do what I need. I can see a high res 35mm body replacing the Pentax 645D in the future just not be the end all to what I need; but, not where I am now because I just can't dump the Pentax 645D from where I am.  Sure I would still keep a select few of my lenses in case I want to go back to the system in the future. I am figuring by the time I make it back to the states Canon will be compeating with Nikon in the high res market and at that time I could look at replacing the 645D but for now will probably run two systems.  (Well three if you count the nich use Pentax k5.)
 

[Ellis Vener]

@ Kevin A: "Did you process the X files in an Adobe product? I see less noise when dev'ed in DPP."

I use Lightroom 4.2. There may be less noise when using DPP ( and I guess that depends on your noise reduction settings, but I'm not a hobbyist and DPP is just too slow for real work. Using Lightroom also allows for access to some other tools (DNG, ColorChecker Passport profiling, Datacolor SpyderCal ColorChecr profiling, and Enfuse for me) that using DPP or Capture NX 2 for that matter do not.

[KevinA]

@ Kevin A: "Did you process the X files in an Adobe product? I see less noise when dev'ed in DPP."

I use Lightroom 4.2. There may be less noise when using DPP ( and I guess that depends on your noise reduction settings, but I'm not a hobbyist and DPP is just too slow for real work. Using Lightroom also allows for access to some other tools (DNG, ColorChecker Passport profiling, Datacolor SpyderCal ColorChecr profiling, and Enfuse for me) that using DPP or Capture NX 2 for that matter do not.

The same reason as a rule I don't use DPP, I process in Aperture, I have DPP set as the external processor in case I think I need it. As of yet I have not felt the urge other than curiosity to use DPP. I have to say DPP works well although does not fit my general workflow either.

Kevin.